Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) at 23:02, 2 August 2011 (→‎Cults: cases both opened). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Illicit Drug Interventions   27 July 2011 {{{votes}}}
User:Δ   16 July 2011 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration



Illicit Drug Interventions

Initiated by Minphie (talk) at 03:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Despite many thousands of words of civil discussion on three article Talk pages,[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] and recourse to third opinions not involved in the dispute on four separate occasions, mostly favoring the journal articles or related organization Entry 24, Entry 35, Entry 17, Entry 4, the issue remains unresolved. Further, in my opinion, mediation is highly unlikely to progress this dispute. I cannot see any other step as sufficient to resolve this issue.

Statement by Minphie

I believe a dispute which is currently continuing on three Wikipedia pages - Insite, Supervised injection site, Needle-exchange programme - which each describe various drug harm-reduction interventions, needs to be arbitrated. The dispute, beginning October 2008, first citedfirst reverted concerns the reliability of the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice as a Wikipedia source and has escalated since November 2010. The information stakes are fairly high, because one of the articles in this journal was cited by the Canadian government as its academic defence for closing Insite, the Vancouver supervised injection site. Another article, cited by the noted EMCDDA ‘Harm Reduction’ Monograph, claims that the journal evidence for the effectiveness of needle exchange programs is inconclusive, as against previous international claims for their success.

The dispute for example has involved the blanking or reversion, on 28 occasions according to my count, of text citing the JGDPP articles on the Insite page [14] alone, with the dispute most evident from 29 May 2011 on. Blanking of JGDPP text continued even after an e-mail from the journal’s Chief Editor confirmed the journal was indeed peer-reviewed here. The dispute has in some articles then progressed to leaving JGDPP citations on the relevant pages, but tagging them as an ‘unreliable medical source’. Dispute has then continued over whether the issues in the disputed articles are medical or not, then further escalated to whether criticisms from related drug prevention organisations are reliable sources or not, despite third party RS/N input previously affirming one of the organizational sources under dispute. Again, resolution has not been reached despite seeking third opinions via WP:RS/N on the four occasions previously detailed. The dispute has produced one unproven sock-puppetry allegation[15] and three complaints for edit-warring, one upheld [16] and the other two not [17][18].

Statement by Steinberger

In my view, there is a clear consensus that WP:MEDRS apply to purported science on drug interventions and that articles in Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice or by Drug Free Australia does not meet the requirements set up in the said policy. Steinberger (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously concur with others in their assertions that s/he is a POV-pusher and examples of this is the way s/he uses genuinely reliable sources, pick certain facts from them that don't reflect their overall conclusions in order to portray reviews and such as negative towards certain inventions when they are not. Typically s/he also adds information from highly partisan and less reliable sources, giving them equal validity, to elaborate on the findings. Such as these examples from Insite and Harm reduction. Steinberger (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jmh649(Doc James)

I am only tangentially involved in that I do a lot of work making sure Wikipedia references follow WP:MEDRS. This users edits does not and he is using every means possible to a push a none main stream POV. We have an article on Wikipedia that discusses the JGDPP [19] which makes clear the scientific communities opinion of its reliability.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by previously uninvolved Peter Cohen

Looking at the edit history of the account which brought this case, they look suspiciously like an SPA which pushes a POV about drug treatment that goes against that which normally appears in the best quality peer-reviewed medical, sociological and social policy journals.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by more or less uninvolved Wnt

I should just point out that WP:MEDRS is a content guideline, not a policy, giving recommendations about the priority of sources, not forbidding all mention of them. I find that WP:MEDRS fundamentalism can be disruptive, because medical issues are not always best covered by "mainstream" sources - especially those involving herbal or other non-prescribed drugs, which receive relatively little formal scientific attention but exceptional popular interest. A POV that includes only the mainstream is not neutral. Of course, minority or unscientific points of view should be represented as such where appropriate. Wnt (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved Ohiostandard

It's my opinion that this ought not to have been brought here, for the same reasons articulated by arbitrators who've already commented below. Nevertheless, since I was named as a party to this request, I think it would be disrespectful not to present my view of this conflict. Btw, apologies all around for being rather late to the party on this. I've been on a bit of a wikibreak.

User Minphie's only activity on Wikipedia has been to carry on a single-handed campaign to promote the "war on drugs" views of organizations like the Drug Free America Foundation that lobbies, directly and via a surprising number of astroturf projects, for much harsher penalties and more vigorous enforcement. That organization is aggressively opposed to needle exchange programs and other harm reduction efforts, which it calls "a tactic to normalize drug use." Because the organization had the same founders, it is often named as the successor to the notorious Straight, Incorporated that operated an extremely abusive, very long-term residential boot-camp style program for kids who had been discovered to have used drugs.

The so-called Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice is a captive vehicle for the Drug Free America Foundation. It appears to me to be nothing more than a sophisticated project to artificially promote and lend credibility to its "war on drugs" political agenda. I came to this conclusion after completing something like 20 hours of research about it when I first saw its article come up at AfD. Beyond that initial 20 hours, I've found it necessary to put in considerably more time to be able to respond intelligently to Minphie's ceaseless attempts to incorporate "research" from this publication into our articles.

In one recent week, for example, I spent another eight or ten hours learning about and investigating citation index databases for academic articles to discover that this so-called journal has evidently been cited just twice by legitimate journals since its inception in 2007. One of those two citations, at least, was made to strongly criticize the publication as a "marketing device" for the pro-enforcement views of its parent Drug Free America Foundation. ( I don't have access to the second journal that cited it, although I have reason to suspect that it was also cited there for the purpose of unfavorable commentary. ) It appears that almost no one in the published academic community views this as a legitimate scientific journal, with the possible exception of those involved in promoting it.

All of us who contribute to these articles have been extremely patient in trying to answer Minphie's very long and repetitive arguments up until now. But most of us have found it neccessary to spend far too much time responding to his campaign, and I think we've all become pretty weary at this point of his ongoing refusal to accept talk page consensus.

As I've told Minphie before, if the data and corresponding conclusions presented by the Drug Free America Foundation and its Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice are sound, those same conclusions will sooner or later be published in one of the great many legitimate journals devoted to science rather than one set up to promote an extreme political agenda. He's welcome to search for such sources: It's not like there's any lack of legitimate, high-quality journals to choose from in the areas of medicine, addiction, and public health policy. But there's simply no reason he should be allowed to keep scraping the bottom of the publications barrel so persistently to push his POV, nor any reason why he should be allowed to continue defying the strong consensus among contributors to these articles, as he's been doing for literally years, now.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/5/0/0)

  • Awaiting statements. Right now, the request does not articulate prior steps in the dispute resolution process have failed to resolve this, which will tend to lead to a closure as premature if not forthcoming. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a 3O in November 2008 ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 04:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Decline in favor of an intermediate DR step such as mediation or an RfC. 3O's and noticeboards are primary DR venues, ArbCom is tertiary. Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also look forward to hearing from the other parties, but I agree with Jclemens that based on what I've seen so far, this dispute may not be ready for arbitration because other steps in the dispute resolution process have not yet been tried. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a weeks-long, highly contentious process, and for that reason we ask that other methods of resolving problems be tried first. In addition, the Arbitration Committee deals primarily with misconduct by Wikipedia contributors, and not with issues of article content, except perhaps in rare and exceptional cases (such as those involving protracted BLP violations), we are not a group of "super-editors" with the authority, or the expertise, to decide what the content of articles should it. I do note that there has been discussion on article talkpages about this disagreement; it would probably be very helpful if one or more uninvolved administrators would help out here, carefully review the situation, and assist the parties moving forward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline at this time per Jclemens about and Elen of the Roads below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has there been any wider community input as to the reliability of this Journal? If not, then that would appear to be the missing step. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Decline. All the four times cited above that this journal has come up at WP:RS, there have been questions about its reliability and suitability as a medical source. Arbcom is not going to challenge that decision. All the rest is just your bog-standard edit warring. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. This has gone on long enough. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the community has repeatedly rejected this journal as a MEDRS source, would it not be easier just to block the filing party indefinitely for disruptive editing, given that he is the only one persistently adding it to articles. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline in the hope this dispute can be resolved without arbitration, which is often a lengthy and contentious process. This doesn't imply your dispute is unimportant, merely that arbitration isn't the best way to resolve it. Suggest having a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - there are several kinds of dispute resolution that could be useful. For the content side of the dispute, given the complexity of the issues, I would suggest the next stage is informal mediation, and if there are more serious problems you could try either a Request for Comment on content or formal mediation. For the user conduct dispute, if there are relatively minor concerns you could try Wikiquette alerts, and if there are more serious conduct problems, I would suggest a Request for Comment on user conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline; I don't think this is ripe for the committee, it seems well within the capabilities of normal dispute resolution. — Coren (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Δ

Initiated by MickMacNee (talk) at 15:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by MickMacNee

I'm filing this request firstly for the reasons outlined in this post, and the further diffs it refers to, which showed Delta still in these last months has a persistent habit of making personal attacks and of general incivility which violate even the basic policies, let alone his long standing probation, and that the admin corps is largely failing to deal with this in the manner expected, and certainly failing to give the people he attacks any protection or assurance it won't be repeated. Secondly, I'm filing due to the fact that his response to the committee's recent Motion about him was to maintain his state of complete denial, and even after that finding, he continues to dismiss legitimate complaints with his editting which relate to his other restrictions to do with due care and attention. He feels so bold even after this formal reminder that he has no problem dismissing even an admin who was so warning him, as a harasser and stalker [20][21]. The future likelihood of such complaints reaching resolution in normal channels is thus still minimal, as the committee saw in the run up to the motion. His poor behaviour which so often rises to open contempt and defiance, his long standing personal prejudices, and his unshakeable belief in the virtue of his own conduct & standard of work, are all completely unchanged by this motion, as aptly demonstrated by his continuance of NFCC enforcement edits even after the part of the motion banning him from such had reached a majority. This is solely a behavioural issue which has barely anything to do with NFCC, and it can, and clearly will, be taken into future areas of interest given the topic ban, as it has been in the past.

If the committee dismisses this request, there is no doubt in my mind that you will be forced to make further motions within a year, which will simply be more firefighting without addressing root causes or enabling factors. There were several editors considering filing a full case prior to that motion, and I doubt they have been assuaged by it. I haven't sought any co-signers for this case, but I'm sure they could be found if the committee wants to see some and I'm given leave to solicit them, in the knowledge of what attacks doing so would invite without such leave. In terms of parties, I see this as a community wide dispute in which I would expect community level findings of fact & remedies on anyone except Delta, but for specimen charges I've named admins Slackr, Fastily & Future Perfect at Sunrise as parties as admins whose failures had a direct impact in the first incidents mentioned. I've also named admin Black Kite and user Hammersoft as parties, as their comments as regards Delta have recently crossed the line from mere civil dissent, to outright incivil bad faith hostility [22][23][24][25][26], which adds to the tendency for all discussions about Delta to now derail into drama without any resolution. I expect both those categories could grow if other incidents are examined in detail in a case. MickMacNee (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft. You have recently classed me as one of the Delta "hate squad", you have put any and all of my posts on 'permanent ignore' until now, and before that you invoked your stupid 'Hammersoft's Law' more times than I can remember whenever I've tried to interact with you, even though plenty of people have told you it's a childish and counter-productive way to conduct yourself. You can consider me skipping to the venue of last resort as a direct consequence of that outlook tbh. And even if it wasn't me, I've seen how you generally receive any critical feedback (example) so my advice to anyone if they have a complaint with you would be to simply give you a single chance to respond, then when the inevitable comes, go straight to the involuntary venues. As for the rest: no, so what, no, no, yes, yes. MickMacNee (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Fut Purf, as per the linked diffs, your involvement relates first to your hatting of the AE request on Delta as 'wikihouding', thereby closing off yet another editor's recent attempt to resolve a dispute by having Delta held to the standards already set out in previous cases using the ordinary channels, meaning his behaviour was allowed to continue until it got so bad a further Motion was necessary, and secondly, the fact that on a report to ANI of a clear cut personal attack by Delta on me, your chosen way of responding to that was to simply repeat the attack. I'll repeat, you are a sample party, I don't by any means allege you are the worst offender, you are simply unfortunate in that your egregarious actions stood out to me when thinking about filing. The time has long since passed that the few admins who are actively not helping this dispute get resolved are identified, and if necessary any general findings and remedies that may arise are given some specific contexts using them, to assist admins in future as regards what is and is not expected from them in cases like this. MickMacNee (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem. The scope as far as I'm concerned is Delta's ongoing behaviour and related issues of how its being handled by normal processes. NFCC is related only insofar as how its being used to divert from that, such as the continual false claims that the only people who criticise Delta are people who want to change/ignore that policy, or this idea that arbcom are out to destroy the Free Encyclopoedia, and all the other related histrionic and hateful bullshit that has somehow become normality from some people as a response when discussing this guy in normal channels. As such, we are well past WQA/RFC. Can you seriously imagine that sort of thing succeeding when you have opinions like that of Roux in here starting to creep into acceptance? I highlighted that in the filing as one of the precise admin failures necessitating this, so I'm surprised to see it emerge as an argument for not having it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily. Similarly with Future Perfect, your involvement is detailed in the filing and is made also as an egregarious sample party, namely due to your closure of the AN3 report as no action where Delta had restored a personal attack 4 times in rapid succession, apparently based on the consensus and your opinion that he was not making "innappropriate edits", both of which were questioned, and which nullifed an independently made block for the same, on mere procedural grounds, with the promised further discussion failing to materialise, leading us down the path of inaction which eventually led to the Motion. MickMacNee (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Slackr. You're involved on the same terms as Fastily & Future Perfect, I don't think I could have put that any clearer no? I am frankly surprised there are so many admins on this site who seem to not be able to follow wikilinks, and/or simply don't remember the admin actions they take or cannot recall them when they are called to account. Maybe you guys are just spreading yourselves too thinly to practice due care and attention? It's almost as surprising as the way the definition of 'simple disagreement' seems to have changed in here too. MickMacNee (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@The concept of a merge - (beurocratic word limit strikes again - see diff for what was here.)
@BorisG. Delta was already under restrictions before the Motion, and just this past month or so someone tried AE as a venue for reporting violations of them - after several editors had made their case, and Delta had lobbed some personal attacks in response, the whole lot was simply shut down as 'wikihounding' by one of the admins named as a party here, who is claiming he has no idea why he's considered a party. It's pointless even pretending that this is a viable option any more, any kind of debatable violation will likely get the same treatment as well as more of the same diversion and evasion, and the only kind of obvious violation would be if he just started making NFCC edits again or made 50,000 edits in a minute or went and called Jimbo a total c-word. For such obvious violations, an AE case is hardly warranted, you would hope. Although even then, you start to wonder if anyone would do anything without an AE report being filed. MickMacNee (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted in light of some comments, that Delta's view post-motion anger period is completely unchanged. All of his opinions on the whos/whys/wherefores of his situation are proveably wrong, the claims aren't even remotely true even if you put a favourable pro-Delta slant on the actual facts, as the evidence that would come up in a case would easily show. Seriously, when is he ever going to be called to account for calling these fantasies a reality? I don't know what the committee's feelings are, but I for one do not want to see the NFCC ripped up, I do not spend more time on the drama boards than article space (for direct comparison to Delta, I have 10,000+ article edits, all unique and with no batch runs, all unaided by scripts, all with full individual edit summaries, all throughly checked and verified for the possiblity of errors, and with not a single one causing me to be sanctioned or topic banned by the committee), I have never stalked or harassed or bullied Delta except in his own ludicrous definition of such behaviours (which do not meet either the real world or even the Wiki-definition of such), and I do not criticize his edits or style just because he works in NFCC. He cannot, no, he will not, ever do anything to prove any of these claims. And tbh, why should he have to if the committee rejects this case? He's happy to simply set himself up as a perma-victim and repeat them into eternity, safe in the knowledge that there's no comeback likely from an indifferent administration, and that it's proveably helpful to throw this sort of shit into the fan whenever anyone tries to have his conduct examined and controlled in the way the committe has tried to remind admins that its supposed to. MickMacNee (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Chase. Delta (& Hammersoft) have said in the past, and still do after the motion [27], that they actually believe that straight removal as enforcement, whatever the cause & no matter how trivial (and there are several trivial ways NFCC can be violated), is a valid way of teaching users about how to use NFC properly. I think it's obvious to other established editors that a) that's not what we do for any other policy, b) the success of that as a strategy relies on the remover having impeccable communication skills and empathy from then on, which is not the case for either of those two, as has been pointed out to both many times by many users. As a basic strategy, it also has the blatant flaw that it's not a given that the upoader is even the source of the fault, or is even still around. And even when it does catch someone's eye, if this is the strategy, you have to wonder why edit warring, templating and threats have been such a central feature of what often happens next. MickMacNee (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@committee. As an example of my scepticism as to how Delta's ongoing issues need to be rolled up into my case given they don't relate to me in any way, or why he needs to be given time to show he has taken on board the reminder of the Motion given his open rejection of it and ongoing behaviour right now, I submit the following sequence:
(Delta's current chosen work seems to be script driven batch editting making various trivial changes, the declared scope of which is a mystery to me, but seems to at least involve anything from MoS edits, ref formatting, dead link highlighting, redirected file renaming, all at once, all simply described in the edit summary as "cleanup".)
Yesterday he arrived at 2006–07 UEFA Champions League
He applies the cleanup
In this case it constituted a packaging of a deadlink rescue with some table markup changes
User:PeeJay2K3 reverted shortly after, with the summary how is that a cleanup?
9 hours later, Delta returns to revert that revert, with the edit summary "Please do not blindly revert my edits" [28]
3 minutes after the 2nd revert, Delta posts to PeeJay2K3's talk page, the following: "Question" - "Why did you revert my edit?" [29]
PeeJay2K3 gives no response, but returns to make a partial revert, leaving the deadlink change, but re-reverting the table changes, with the summary "it was hardly a blind revert" [30]
Now, it should be acknowledged that PeeJay2K3 is acting as bad as Delta in this case, and he would be the first to admit I am no friend of his because of it, but he at least has not in the past called me his stalker or harasser for merely pointing it out. Incivility yes, but not straight up personal attacks like that. PeeJay2K3 also is under no active sanctions to not do it, yet, AFAIK. So, I'm just interested to hear from the committee as to whether this shows the reminder was taken on board by Delta, and that he is showing post-Motion that he can still edit productively outside NFCC, and that he is not likely to trigger or at least be an equal party to disputes in other areas due to his style of communication or due to the kind of work he chooses to do and how he chooses to do it. As we see, incidents like this are not being proactively monitored for by the admins you formally reminded either, it's passed them by completely, or they saw it and just cannot be bothered, for obvious reasons. And I have no doubt that if incidents like this were reported to avenues like WQA or ANI, it would result in nothing but what has gone before many times also, and certainly no change in the future behaviour of Delta. Similarly if this incident was reported to AN3, I have no doubt we would see another failure like that of Slackr's or Fastily's, who will ignore it simply because he hasn't breached the 3 revert allowance, sorry, 'limit', in this case. Granted, this is a minor incident, and if it weren't for this request it's something which I wouldn't nowadays even bother highlighting any more such is the hopeless apathy and unchecked hatred that surrounds all attempts to have any specific Delta incident examined objectively and neutrally nowadays. Nonetheless, it very definitley falls under the restrictions, and inaction only leads one way with this user - bolder and more serious violations, ending in wide ranging disputes and motions like that of last week, for which you get the dog's abuse for, being the NFCC denying stalkers that you are, apparently. There's certainly nothing about this minor incident that hasn't been discovered or ruled on in the past, so why are we contemplating going through all this again, and again, and again, or worse, pretending it's got anything to do with me? MickMacNee (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Xeno. That would stil put any enforcing admin in the unenviable position of enforcing 'MickMacNee' remedies on Delta, even though I had nothing to do with the behaviours and violations that led to them being placed. I seriously doubt that is going to have a calming effect on that situation given his deeply held paranoid delusions about my alleged part in his downfall, and frankly, as recent discussions about Delta have shown, there are too many gullible and/or stupid people on this site who would really get confused if they were told I had nothing to do with it. And it's not a stretch to think Delta would try to use the name to his advantage, to try and claim that I was having some part in the next phase of the "harassment" against him, should there ever be an admin brave enough to enforce such remedies. MickMacNee (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

statement by largely uninvolved roux

Decline this please. If for no other reason than the savage irony--or breathless lack of self-awareness--of MMN complaining about someone else's incivility and personal attacks. → ROUX ₪ 16:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

statement by uninvolved jtrainor

I urge the committee to accept this and thoroughly examine the issues. The community has become too polarized over the issue and any community discussion on the topic inevitably ends up spanning pages and pages and ending in almost complete deadlock. As I said previously this was going to come to Arbcom sooner or later anyways, so we might as well take care of it and settle things once and for all.

It is likely that if this case is declined, Betacommand/Delta's supporters will view it as 'vindication' and dealing with him will become even more difficult. Jtrainor (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie, all evidence pertaining to Betacommand/Delta in the MMM case was struck as it was all contributed by Chester Merkel, who has since been banned as a sock. In any case he is not a party to that case. Jtrainor (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hammersoft

You want to take Δ to arbitration because he continued to make NFCC edits until the motion was enacted? Please note that he didn't make any NFCC enforcement edits following enactment of the motion. Or maybe you want to take him to arbitration because he's not happy about his topic ban? What, you expect him to be HAPPY about it? Wow. You want to take me and a whole slew of other parties beyond Δ to arbitration without attempting any other form of dispute resolution with regards to them? You want to take me to arbitration because I find fault with ArbCom's decision? You want to take me to arbitration because of a prediction of the future I made? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

Merge and redirect to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence. I would also ask that my name be removed from the case, as I do not consider myself an involved party, unless disagreeing with ArbCom is now a hanging offence. I certainly will not be participating in any way. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Beyond My Ken

  1. MMN has not presented any facts worthy of opening a full arbitration case, and his request is precipitous.
  2. I agree entirely with Roux's statement, the irony is palpable
  3. Hammersoft's analysis seems to me to be right on point. If a new equilibrium is to come about, Delta needs to be given some leeway to vent, since his primary area of work has been taken away from him. After some time has passed, if Delta has not calmed down andedits disruptively, this issue can be revisited.
  4. If the committee feels that it needs to deal with this in case form, Black Kite's suggestion is an excellent one, since MMN's case is still open, and Delta is a named party in that case
  5. However, I urge the committee to reject this request, and allow time for normal adminstrative action to deal with any possible infractions of the topic ban by Delta. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-statement by Fut.Perf.

I don't consider myself a party to this case, as long as no concrete statements about my alleged involvement have been brought forward, and I ask clerks to remove my name from the list in the absence of such. In the unlikely event that input from me should be needed here, I'm afraid I'll be away for most of the next two weeks. – Apart from that: concur with Hammersoft and Roux. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved admin Rich Farmbrough

Community resolution of this dispute, intimately tied together with the NFCC issues (which was bounced by an ARBCOM motion - in which at least one involved ARBCOM member participated, on the face of things) has not been exhausted. Rich Farmbrough, 20:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Masem

It is very difficult to judge the severity of this request as numerous factors are conflicting: several recent AN/ANI threads, the recent ArbCom motion, and MMN's current own open case. MMN's summary is based on his own personal interactions and dissatisfaction with how others have perceived what MMN considers personal attacks, normally which would have been taken to other DRs first like WQA or RFC/U, so immediately sending this to ArbCom seems too premature. But again, numerous recent discussions make the actual matter at hand difficult to understand. Is it Delta's general behavior towards any of his edits? Is it the whole way NFCC editors behavior? Is it the treatment of NFCC by the body as a large? Is it the lack of anyone willing to step forward to block Delta based on such claims? I think a clear statement of the case extent needs to be stated before it can be resolved.

That said, if the case is strictly focused on Delta's behavior, the recent block by ArbCom would need to be reviewed within this case. The end result of the case may be the continuation of that motion, but I would propose that a possible (not necessarily likely) outcome is that the motion may have been inappropriate in light of the larger case. The motion should not be seen set in stone with a new case opened this close to the motion itself which seemed to pass without significant input from non-AC editors. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@MMN: Based on the statement you're making that this is about Delta's behavior and does not involve anyone else outside of supporting Delta's behavior, this is absolutely the wrong step then to proceed: there's no secret that there's a bit of bod blood between you and Delta, and that's being addressed as your case. Even without that, specific addressing of Delta's behavior should be over at WQA or RFC/U than an immediate jump to ArbCom. This case should be rejected, or as noted, elements considered as part of MMN's case. --MASEM (t) 11:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fastily

Like Fut.Perf. above, I do not consider myself an involved party. I ask that a clerk remove my name from this case accordingly. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 20:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikidemon

Facepalm Facepalm

Statement by Heim

To Fozzie, and anyone else interested in coupling this with the MMN case: Wouldn't that be likely to delay the decision in the MMN case? I really think that case needs a resolution sooner, not later. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by slakr

Ermm... I'm an "involved party?" Please enlighten me as to why, as I'm completely in the dark here. --slakr\ talk / 05:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and as per the other above statements, please also remove my name from the list if there's no good reason for me to be here. :P Thanks =) --slakr\ talk / 05:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cometcaster

I urge the ArbCom to reject this case. This is nothing but MickMacNee pursuing his vendetta against Delta. --cc 09:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LessHeard vanU

While it may be a bit too early to accept this case, I suggest that it is not declined outright and nor is it merged with the MMN case; perhaps it should be held as "pending" or similar. I am against a flat decline because I fear that it would feed delta's "confirmation bias", that a declined case would be taken as evidence that there is no issue with his post motion conduct and indeed he is at liberty to test the boundaries of what he may be permitted. This suggestion is based upon my observations of past restriction "gaming" (remember how compliance with NFCC allowed Betacommand to disregard community based restrictions, according to him? There is history here.) Keeping the door open to a full case may persuade delta to comply with the recent restrictions.
I further suggest that the case is not merged with the MMN case since it is not a case of delta vs. Mick, but of delta and his supporters disruption to the general community. If (and I think it will be when) a case is accepted I shall be providing evidence that the actions of User:Hammersoft and others (regardless of their undoubted good faith, etc.) has "enabled" delta to ignore legitimate and widespread concerns regarding his editing and conduct, to continue not to modify his behaviour, and thus were and are the cause of continued disruption to the project. There is some evidence of this habit of directing their energies toward the complainent and not the issues raised in some of the Statements above, for instance. Some editors who may be party to a delta orientated case may not be so - at least to the point of evidence and FoF's - in the MickMacNee case, and thus the cases should be held separately.
I think there should be a case, but perhaps in the near future rather than now - delta may usefully be given time to provide the rope or negate the need for one depending on their reactions. Perhaps there is a basis for a provision acceptance upon further examples of delta "not getting" the recent sanctions? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved BorisG

I suggest declining this case. If Delta violates the restriction imposed by the recent motion, he can be easily sanctioned (blocked) at AE. - BorisG (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC) @MMN: NFCC has been handled by Motion, and as you yourself admit, will lead to further sanctions if downright violated. Incivility can be handled within the current ArbCom case. Although it does not name all the parties you suggested, they will surely get note of any sanction (or lack thereof) imposed on Delta as a result . - BorisG (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by largely uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert

As a general observation - a large number of people on both sides of the recent dispute and motion were highly upset, and subsets of those on both sides were uncivil and confrontational beyond normal community standards. I think that everyone who wasn't being incensed was aware of the degree of hostility. I think that everyone who wasn't incensed was balancing intervening on the abuse with the repercussions that intervening would have had - civility warnings or blocks would undoubtedly have been perceived as partisan, even if handed out equally to both sides.

With that said - this is getting stale at this point, and if it starts to heat up it's not constructive to make a new case, in the sense of reducing community tensions etc.

If the problem has not gone away then a short term interaction ban on those seen to be continuing to attack each other seems the lightest touch solution to balance calming down the individual conflicts and not exacerbate the community writ large. A motion for that would seem to be the quickest most painless solution, if anything needs to be done. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved Hasteur

I implore the committee, after their their recent passage of a motion, to decline this motion With Prejudice. Delta was just recently put through the short version of a ArbCom case for the NFCC work. I would assume that ArbCom does take up the principle of Double jeopardy when considering cases. The significant portion of complaint is Delta's work prior to the motion being instigated. The fact that this case request comes relatively quickly after the previous motion demonstrates a significant facination with Delta on the part of MMN. Hasteur (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Rocksanddirt

I agree with Hasteur to a point. This does not need a case and should be declined. delta needed a block as an enforcement of existing restrictions. MMN may or may not have needed a block for garden variety editwarring. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Normally this would be declined, but several arbitrators have asked for hold for the time being. This request will be kept until further notice. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/8/1/1)

  • Comment: Hypothetically, I am on break right now; however, this situation appears to be worsening rather than settling after the recent motion. Awaiting further statements, but at this point I am inclined to accept and to look at the behaviour of all parties specific to the NFCC issue. Risker (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept - I don't think the MMN case will be able to address all of the issues raised here, which involve several other editors besides Delta/Betacommand. Risker (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Enormous WP:POINT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues here. Cool Hand Luke 16:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, try to fold it in to MMN. I will support reopening it if the problem persists after the closing of that case. Cool Hand Luke 15:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hold. It seems increasingly unlikely to me that this will be addressed in the MMN case. I would like to consider taking it after that case closes, as Casliber suggests. Cool Hand Luke 03:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Like Risker, I'm trying to be inactive right now.. but really guys? REALLY? Not 48 hours after we posted a motion in this area, and now a request for a full case? Can't we all just get along? I know one of the core issues (MMN and Delta) was being looked at in the MMN case, can't it be handled there? SirFozzie (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chester's evidence might have been struck, but speaking as one of the case drafters (even if the real world has kept me out), A) That shouldn't stop anyone from posting evidence in that area and B) I know in the preliminary discussions I had with Kirill before the real world hit me (hard), that it was one of the areas we were looking at. SirFozzie (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Formally Declining a seperate case. This should be handled as part of the MMN case. (and noting I'll be inactive if a case is opened until I say otherwise) SirFozzie (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting on this one. I would really rather this settle itself, but if the situation continues to persist I don't see what other options there are. The community has failed spectacularly in resolving this thus far. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline for now. Nothing seems to have blown up in the interim and I think getting existing issues out of the way on our end would be helpful as well. If the motion doesn't prove sufficient... well, we'll find out in short order, won't we? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept While David Fuchs' sentiments are well placed, I am not optimistic that such a community-based solution is forthcoming. If we open the case and it proves to be unnecessary, it can be closed by motion. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per SirFozzie. At the moment, we still have the MickMacNee case open, where I think we can review the issues raised here. However, after the MickMacNee case is closed, and if the recently enacted topic ban for Δ is perceived to be unsatisfactory, then it would make sense to open a new case. PhilKnight (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Phil and SirFozzie. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, for a while, at least. This is simply too soon after the motion, and I want to see if Delta (and Hammersoft) changes his conduct. However, my patience with Delta et al. is running extremely thin. Delta and his supporters are too focussed on taking the easy way out by 'enforcing' the letter of policy, rather than following it themselves, or teaching others how to do so. I see in some of Hammersoft's recent contributions the amazing speed of one edit every two seconds - and I feel the need to remind people that this is not a race. Let me be quite clear about my personal opinion here: policies and board resolutions are to be followed over being 'enforced', and time is much better spent teaching people how to follow said rules than by acting as an 'enforcer' against those who inadvertently break them. The project needs more teachers and more content contributors, rather than enforcers. If we all enforced policy as hard as is being done here, new editors would be chased off entirely, and I daresay there'd be no editors left at all: just enforcers endlessly enforcing. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My inclination is to decline at this time, in the hopes that things will adjust themselves in light of the recently adopted motion—but with a realistic understanding that the needed adjustment does not seem to be happening, and with a caveat that I would be willing to consider a new request in 15 days if the issues persist. Refraining from casting a final vote temporarily to gauge reactions to this suggestion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline in light of the motion recently adopted, as well as the additional finding and remedy being adopted against Δ in the MickMacNee case. I refer all concerned to my comments in that case, and I again implore everyone on all sides of NFCC issues to review and try their best to abide by the principles we articulated in the Betacommand 2 case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline; any evidence or proposals can be submitted to the ongoing case where Δ is a named party. –xenotalk 14:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold (decline) until the MMN case is closing and we get an idea of if things are covered adequately there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline: being addressed in another case.  Roger Davies talk 06:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. --John Vandenberg (chat) 03:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=442754285"